[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC2 kernel quality



Correct. But anyone who has been to a forum knows that there are so many
things users want to compile. And as long as post-install-installing the
packages from the nifty menu didn't work because:
- Broken autorun script on fc2 cd's
- fc2 system-config-packages was really borked anyway - all it did was
to say "please insert CD" - when i in reallity was inserted.

Is this fixed in fc3? I cant test, cus' i only have the NFS install
images...

Idealy, one should have a metapackage called "dev-tools" (or something
like that) in yum, which would "depend" on having yum, make, etc., a
"x-devel", a "gnome-devel" and a "kde-devel" package. Which would make
it really simple to post-installation install it if needed.

fre, 01.10.2004 kl. 01.16 skrev Sindre Pedersen Bjordal:
> Fedora Core can't base it's settings on some third party driver. 
> 
> And besides, NVIDIA drivers doesn't have to require you to compile
> anything. Users should use the rpms from http://rpm.livna.org for an
> easier install and much easier update when there's a new driver
> released. 
> 
> tor, 30,.09.2004 kl. 17.32 -0400, skrev Jeff Spaleta:
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:28:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis
> > <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
> > > I see the problem. All those users of the nvidia driver will have
> > > problems to build the kernel module. And what will they search for to
> > > solve the problem: a kernel-source(code) rpm that is will not be part of
> > > FC3 (as it seems).
> > 
> > Fact: All those users who install fedora via the default "Desktop
> > Install" option
> > don't get the build tools to compile nvidia drivers as it is.  Shall
> > we pollute the default install to include all the development packages
> > and build tools are there just in case someone wants to build
> > something from source?
> > 
> > The point is, as a packaging policy, the commonly required buildtools
> > are not explicitly stated as buildrequirements for most src packages,
> > nor for -devel binary packages.  Your going to have to come up with a
> > pretty impressive argument to make a need to one specific -devel
> > package require cpp explicitly when -devel packages currently in the
> > distro do not explicitly require gcc or cpp.
> > 
> > -jef"112 -devel packages from Core installed and none of them
> > explicitly require gcc or cpp which should a kernel-module-devel
> > package be different?"spaleta
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > When the case above would be very common, you can make the
> > > > header-package part of the base-system but without requiring it
> > > > explicitly. So it can be disabled on minimal installations.
> > > 
> > > Don't understand this. How to solve the problem with updated kernels and
> > > the needed headers for those? Add them all to one package and update
> > > this every time a kernel-update is released -- this will be a big
> > > package after some kernel-updates...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>
> > > 
> > > --
> > > fedora-devel-list mailing list
> > > fedora-devel-list redhat com
> > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
> > >
> > 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]